Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Some Marxist Moonbats just don't get it. The country we want back is the one where people were free and the government was limited. You know, the one where the Constitution was the law of the land, people were self-made, and government was viewed with a wary eye.

The following media morons wouldn't know the Constitution if I spanked their spoiled asses with it:

Frank Rich, writing in the New York Times "The Rage is Not About Health Care", which I expounded on in my Sunday post, below. Summary of Rich's opinion: Those opposed to the grandiose vision of the Left are racists.

Joan Walsh, writing in Salon, "What's the Matter with White People" alleging that opposition to the Progressive ideals such as Obamacare is rooted in white racism. NOT. The "other people" that we think would be the recipient of government redistribution of income could be anyone, including whites. Were Joan and Frank Rich separated at birth?

Colbert King, writing in the Washington Post, "In the faces of Tea Party shouters, images of hate and history" suggesting that Tea Party protesters against the health bill are the equivalent of racists protesting the integration of Little Rock's Central High School in 1957. It appears that Mr. King is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. He has been held hostage by the Democratic Party so long that he forgets that it is the Democrats who fought to keep Blacks enslaved, dominated the South and Blacks after the Civil War, and have used government welfare to further subjugate Blacks from the 1960's onward. Pity the fool.

Frank James, writing at National Public Radio (a grandaddy of left-wing fruit-loopery), "Health-Care Protests Bring Out Racist, Homophobic Slurs" alleging that opposition to Obamacare is rooted in "free-form hostility some Americans feel towards the political ascendancy of people who don't look like them or who have a different sexual orientation." No, it's because I cherish my right to choose my health care and to be free from paying for yours.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

My commentary is based upon this Frank Rich op-ed, "The Rage is Not About Health Care." I had originally thought to title my commentary, "Frank Rich is symbolic of what is wrong with this country", but decided that if Frank can resort to hyperbole, false characterizations, and name-calling, that I would keep to the high road and call a spade a spade.

Frank starts out describing the "apoplectic" reactions of Karl Rove and Rep. John Boehner, R-OH, to the so-called health care bill. Frank needs to get out a little more. If he would spend some time outside his ivory tower, he would realize that Rove and Boehner represent the feelings of at least 60% of the population. The majority of the populace do not want the health care bill and are not being represented by their elected officials in Congress. To elitist Frank, non-representation is not a concern because our liberal betters know what we need.

Next Frank goes on the defensive for those miscreant congressmen who voted for Obamacare. It is not enough for Frank to make the outrageous statement that death threats are being made. (Actually a few death threats aren't surprising. Remember that the Left actually cheered for a movie about President Bush being assassinated.) Frank has to add a sinister element to the public displeasure with the Obamacare supporters. "Civil rights hero" John Lewis, "openly gay" Barney Frank, and "black representative" Emanuel Cleaver are cited by Frank as targets of public anger over Obamacare. I, and the vast majority of people protesting Obamacare, don't care if John Lewis, Barney Frank, and Emanuel Cleaver are orange, straight as Pat Robertson, and bonafide patriots. Obamacare is the socialist camel's nose under the tent of liberty and free people are not happy about it.

Frank compares Obamacare to Roosevelt's New Deal, Johnson's Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act. He concludes that, compared to these ideological rips in the fabric of our society, Obamacare is no big deal. Frank is flat-out wrong. The New Deal is known to have prolonged the suffering of the American people through the Great Depression and has laid waste to trillions of dollars of earnings.

Social Security alone, aside from the pillaging of the social security trust fund for runaway government spending, currently removes some twelve percent of earned income from the economy under the guise of old-age income security. Add on the medicare tax from Johnson's Great Society, and another three percent of earned income is removed from the economy. Total removed from the paychecks of working American's for social security programs: 15.3 percent of earned income. And workers from age 16 on will not see a dime of benefit until at least age 62.

Johnson's Great Society, aside from adding a health care tax to everyone's earned income, made fathers an endangered species. What does a child need a father for when there is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), United States Department of Agriculture food stamps, Housing and Urban Development Section 8 housing, utilities assistance, free medicaid health insurance, free college tuition, and subsidized (nearly free) daycare? Generations of children do not have relationships with their fathers because the state has made fathers unnecessary. Why should a mother keep a pesky father around when the state will pay her to get rid of him? I know this from experience, having been a family law attorney for over fifteen years.

Other highlights of the Great Society include the Model Cities Act. Remember Detroit, Michigan? The liberals don't want you to remember, because Detroit is a nearly-dead city and was a prime recipient of assistance under the Model Cities Act. Watch this video by Steven Crowder. Oh, and of course we have Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action has been perhaps the most racist legislation enacted since slavery was outlawed in this country. Affirmative Action is so contrary to the egalitarian, rise-on-your-own-merits heritage of this country that it has created an environment in which the able are marginalized for the benefit of underqualified minorities. The most visible result of Affirmative Action and the damage it has caused our Republic are the Marxist occupants of the White House, Michelle and Barry Soetoro. Forget qualifications, or even the requirement that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen, just vote for Barry because he is black.

That leads me to the Civil Rights Act. Noble purpose, bad execution. This camel's nose has led to protected classes for everyone but white males. In creating special protections for every minority class in existence, the only true minority left in this country is the white male.

So, if Obamacare is hardly as consequential as the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act, Frank can keep it. Frank's purpose in mentioning the FDR and LBJ era programs is based upon his mistaken belief that these are popularly recognized as "good" government intervention and that anyone who opposes them is a racist troglodyte.

No, free people in this country are resistant to Obamacare and other liberal/progressive/socialist/Marxist programs for reasons that a pampered, pseudo-intellectual, Francophile turd like Frank cannot begin to understand.

First, opposition to Obamacare is about taxation. Four years of taxes before real implementation begins. Not to mention the fact that all working Americans already pay a health care tax for medicare that most of us don't receive. Not to mention other stealth taxes such as the ten percent tax on tanning salons that Frank blithely referenced in his article. Frank would be screaming if a ten percent tax were levied upon his income in addition to the taxes he already pays. If Frank were residing in my home state of the People's Republic of the Other Washington, I would use the referendum process to target his sorry ass for extreme taxation just as his liberal cohorts target the working-class producers of this country to finance their utopian oppression.

Second, opposition to Obamacare is about representation. Representation as in paying attention to the wishes of the electorate, not the fat-ass op-ed columnists who pronounce what is best for American from the offices of their morally and financially bankrupt newspapers. The American people are overwhelming opposed to Obamacare and were not represented by our traitorous senators and representatives.

Third, and most importantly, opposition to Obamacare is about the Constitution and liberty. Frank could care less about the Constitution. True Constitutional scholars recognize that the federal government cannot control state governments and that forcing individuals to purchase a product (such as health insurance) is unconstitutional. Lightweight intellectuals like Frank cite the Commerce Clause. Frank does not recognize the potential for abuse of the Commerce Clause, which could be used to require him to wear a pink tutu and slippers while writing his column, as his column does enter into interstate commerce. My health care, in my state of residence, is not an interstate commerce issue and is further protected by the Tenth Amendment.

Further, the liberty of a free people is being infringed by Obamacare. Aside from having to pay for the health insurance of other people, which is in itself an infringement upon my liberty, I have the right to determine what health care I want, if any at all. It is an impermissible infringement upon my liberty to force me to purchase health insurance or to pay a tax for not purchasing health insurance. If I want to pay a private doctor, a clinic, an insurance company, an HMO, or the local hospital for my health care, that is my right.

I hope that Frank has a fortified place to hide as he continues to side against freedom-loving Americans who are not going to have infringements to their liberties thrust upon them by an oppressive socialist regime. I do not advise that anyone throw bricks or any other solid building materials at Frank. This is not out of concern for Frank, whose demise could be filed under "civic improvement", but out of my concern that freedom-loving Americans will get better use out of saving such materials for building their bunkers.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

I actually heard the audio of the question and Dingell's answer on Neal Boortz's radio show. Dingell casually answered as if there was nothing unusual at all about having to "control the people." A revealing moment.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

You must understand the difference between literal and figurative speech. Most of us who know that Obama is the Antichrist are speaking figuratively. Obama is racist tyrant whose mind is dominated by paranoid delusions and megalomaniacal fantasies. He despises white America. He wants to enslave white Americans make them bow to him. What emotions do you think were behind his comment, "This is what change looks like?" I think it was Race Hate and he was reveling in the accomplishment of getting white people to vote for their own enslavement. He might as well have said, "This is what Chains look like!"- rfk, Washington, USA, 24/3/2010 19:31

Sunday, March 21, 2010

The Democrats have managed to push that obamanation of a health care bill through the house. Without a single Republican vote they will effectively be taking over one-sixth of the American economy. My representative, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, did not vote for the economic death bill.

Out of the 219 Democraps who voted for this Marxist manifesto, I am going to find the one's that are in nearby districts, then do what I can to contribute to their un-election in the fall. I encourage everyone else to actively work against these 219 traitors to the Republic.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Census form arrived in the mail today. Every ten years the federal government is constitutionally mandated to count the number of people in this country. That's fine.

The Constitution does not require the government to collect my name, age, birthdate, race, and whether I own, rent, or squat in my residence on April 1, 2010.

The only question I am answering is the number of people at my address.

Interestingly enough, the letter accompanying the census form states that my answers cannot be used in court. I assume that applies to blank answers, too. For most of the census form, "blank" is my answer.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Over the years I have defended a few people against state action, from minor criminal charges to the Division of Children and Family Services taking parents' children away from them. One phrase I have used with clients is, "You're on the radar. Be careful." I believe that someone who has been charged with an offense is less likely to be accorded the benefit of the doubt in future actions by police and prosecutors, even if the charge did not result in a conviction. Similarly, once DCFS has been involved with one's family, it is more likely that DCFS will apply additional scrutiny to that family in the future.

I have to wonder if I am "on the radar" now. Every once in a while I check to see who has been visiting this blog. I don't get a lot of visitors, and that's okay because I mainly write for myself. This morning I noticed that I had a visit from the United States Department of Justice. Interesting.

Well, I am still going to be the same politically incorrect troublemaker. Agitating for change isn't a crime. Yet.

Monday, March 15, 2010

2010 will be the twenty-fourth year in which I have voted. I can't think of a lot of good that has come out of it.

I can count on one finger the number of Democrats I have voted for. Unless the Republican was an out-and-out crook and the Democrat had some redeeming qualities, I just cannot bring myself to pull the lever for the cesspool of big government, high tax, anti-small business, pro-union, environmental wacko, anti-gun, pro-gay rights, pro-minority rights, pro-illegal immigrant waste that the Democratic Party has been in my adult lifetime. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anybody wanting to live his life anyway he wants to as long as it is not thrust in my face. If you don't want to own a gun, please don't. I promise that I won't defend you with mine.

Most of the time I have voted Republican because my interests are low taxes, small government, and individual rights. Any Democratic politician who promised sympathy with my interests was almost certainly a liar. With Republicans, at least conservative Republicans, there was a better chance the politicians actually supported my views (excepting RINOs and some of the religious right). Despite promising elements of the Libertarian and Reform parties in the past twenty years, there really hasn't been much of an alternative to the Ass and Elephant Show.

While my disgust with the Democrats knows no bounds, I have become extremely disillusioned with the Republican Party. Instead of differentiating itself from the Democratic Party, the Republicans have spent a generation being the "me, too" party. With Democrats the growth of government from Franklin Roosevelt forward has been exponential. When Republicans are in power the growth is only slightly less than exponential. When the Democrats want the government to take over and socialize the health care system, Republicans should say, "NO!!!!!". Instead, they just come up with a less-intrusive, less socialist government takeover.

I am beginning to believe that voting Republican is only forestalling the collapse and the end of the America I grew up in. With Republicans in power, it will still happen, it will just take a little longer. Maybe, just maybe we can get this over with a lot sooner and rebuild this country if we let Democrats finish the demolition job they have started on this country. Instead of voting for Republicans, or Libertarians, or not voting at all, we should all vote for Democrats in November 2010. Let them finish their destruction so that we citizens can organize our militias, round up the Obamorons, and commence rebuilding this country without them.

Voting for Democrats in order to hasten them along their destructive path is not the same as joining the Kool-Aid drinkers who elected the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and, in the case of my state, such dubious intellects as Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Voting for Democrats allows them to finish the now-inevitable collapse and to own the mess completely. It also makes cleaning up Washington and every other political capital that much easier. When the landscape is neck-deep in Democrats, one can be much more indiscriminate in the use of the pitchfork.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

I haven't posted in just over a month now. I've been watching the economy and politics, wondering when the crash is going to come. There are enough indicators that it is going to happen, what with the government spending like there is no tomorrow, China signalling that it will stop buying our debt, phantom buyers of treasury bills, and the price of gold persistently staying above $1,100.00 per ounce. I have been noticing something interesting about gold over the past few weeks: whenever the price gets over $1,140.00 and appears to be heading higher, there is a sudden drop off in the price, bringing it down near $1,100.00. I have noticed that this just about always happens only when the NYMEX market is open. Is someone manipulating the price of gold to keep the dollar afloat?

So, I firmly believe that an all out economic collapse is in the works. I don't know if it is a slow collapse over a period of weeks or a sudden collapse within the space of a day. But there is no way that the government can continue to spend the way it does without consequences.

Today I read some news that I believe is the other shoe, and that it has dropped. Get ready for the collapse to gain momentum.

According to this story on Newsmax, the social security trust fund is now running a deficit. It is paying out more to retirees and other claimants than it is taking in. What is even more alarming is the fact that the social security trust fund is now going to call in all of the IOU's from the federal government. That's right, the government is going to have to start paying back all of the money that it borrowed over the years to finance massive deficit spending.

The federal government borrowed from the social security trust fund so it would not have to borrow from foreign sources (read: China).

The solution seems simple. Either cut spending or replace the "domestic" borrowing from social security with foreign investors. If the recent news is any indication, cutting spending is out of the question. The Obamorons plan on running a deficit in 2010 of over $1,500,000,000,000.00. That's before we add in the costs of the Obamacare Obamination and other boondoggles.

That leaves foreign sources. The two biggest foreign purchasers of our debt, China and Japan, have been cutting back. China has been rumbling that it will not be purchasing more and will in fact sell off treasury bills if something doesn't change. So far the Obastard has thumbed his nose at the Chinese. Japan doesn't look much better after it has elected a less-than-pro-U.S. government.

With tax receipts in free-fall, the federal government has little choice but to crank up the printing presses and line up more phantom buyers at the treasury auctions.